You do realise TJ that you are suggesting that you have a better understanding of scots law than a trained barrister and former Director of Public Prosecutions and Head of the Crown Prosecution Service, don’t you?
Why would that mean he understands scots law? he will not have been trained in it, he will never have worked with it, he will never have been in a scots court. As DPP he has no jurisdition in Scotland. the two legal systems are separate.
The guardian is a unionist paper and opposes anything the SNP government does. Starmer is a unionist and opposes everything the scots government does. Indeed automatic opposition to anything the SNP does is a long standing policy of labour. the Bain principle
the main objection i and many others have is alleviated by the 3 month waiting period. I am totally in favour of the provisions acting at 16 indeed I have never seen folk in Scotland object to that. In Scotland that would be seen as obvious. any gender reform / recognition would apply from 16.
Politicians doing controversial stuff to cause arguments, that’s all I’ve seen with this issue, most parties agree with most of it, but the drop from 18 to 16 has been a huge issue for a long time, it’s also the only part that appears to have a voter rating below half.
All I see now is the SNP using it as another argument to push the independence argument, and the tories to push the union, they’ve taken away a large portion of this argument and politicised it.
Why would that mean he understands scots law?
I was actually more interested in why you think you know Scots law better than Starmer.
he will not have been trained in it, he will never have worked with it, he will never have been in a scots court.
But you have?
Since Starmer is publicly commenting on the issue, and because he is a trained lawyer, I suspect that he has made fairly sure that he understands the legal issue which he is commenting on.
I certainly have no reason to believe that you are better informed.🧐
All I see now is the SNP using it as another argument to push the independence argument, and the tories to push the union, they’ve taken away a large portion of this argument and politicised it.
Sounds like a very believable comment to me.
But you have?
funnily enough yes. I have had some basic training in aspects of scots law at honours degree level especially around competence and consent where the age of 16 is discussed and absorbed a bit more over the years from Mrs TJ
but the drop from 18 to 16 has been a huge issue for a long time,
Errmm - legal maturity at 16 goes way way back in Scots law and way precedes the setting up of the Scots parliament by centuries hence the marriage at 16 at gretna green because it could be done without parental consent.
Some variety points.
Bit my cynicism (which is realism really based on experience) is this is a tactical move to
(a) distract from the awful mess they have got the NHS in
(b) millions can't have both heating and eating
(c) the clusterfluck in Northern Ireland
(d) the economy is STILL fhoookted
(e) education is in a mess, with droves of teachers leaving (I'm married to such an example)
(f) multiple major strikes inc all those key workers who have been shafted for 12 years in nursing, ambulance, fire, teaching, and soon to be junior doctors too, all where the Gov fundamentally give a toss about them as ministers don't have to use those services
(g) ALL of the above and more.
All I see now is the SNP using it as another argument to push the independence argument, and the tories to push the union, they’ve taken away a large portion of this argument and politicized it.
all the politicising has been done by Sunak. the GRA was supported by both nationalist and unionist parties with even some tories supporting it. It passed holyrood with a large majority
it was as close to cross party consensus as I have seen for a while
Yes Sunak has handed a good oportunity to Sturgeon but thats his stupidity, Its not been politisised by holyrood given that support for it cam from the right and the left and from unionist and nationalist alike
I have had some basic training in aspects of scots law
Yeah that sounds pretty impressive but not quite enough for me to accept that you know more than the former head of the Crown Prosecution Service.
the main objection i and many others have is.....
Why is just about your objections? Why can't Starmer, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and the Guardian also have their objections?
Why do assume that any concerns they may have can't possibly be legitimate and must therefore only be motivated by a hatred of the SNP?
it was as close to cross party consensus as I have seen for a while
Interestingly, the debates in Holyrood moved opinion among MEPs and the public in Scotland. Pretty much back to where they where before the debate in the media and social media became so toxic.
the drop from 18 to 16 has been a huge issue for a long time, it’s also the only part that appears to have a voter rating below half
There was a lot of compromise here though... 16 and 17 year olds will still have to jump through extra hoops that 18+ people won't. It's likely that the number of under 18s getting though the process will be very small... it's almost designed to make them wait. A watering down aimed at those considering the "drop" to be an issue. A shame really, but goes to show that the Scots government aren't intransigent on this.
Starmers only objection seems to be about the age at 16.
Why do assume that any concerns they may have can’t possibly be legitimate and must therefore only be motivated by a hatred of the SNP?
Because that has been their MO for 12 years. A wellorganised and often repeated position. automatically oppose anything the SNP does
What has the equalities commission had to say - I haven't seen owt from them. LInk?
I don't know why you think Starmer is an expert on Scots law given he will never have worked with scots law, never been trained in it and as DPP had no jurisdiction- indeed by his comments about the age 16 it shows he has missed a basic point.
some woolly words from a political appointee who on appointment was criticized for politicising the position and with a record of being against trans rights
Nowt concrete there indeed from my understanding much of that has been addressed
But thanks for the link
Starmers only objection seems to be about the age at 16.
Did he say that? He acknowledged people have concerns... but does he? Is he objecting? Not really clear at all.
Anyway... anyone want to talk about Sunak...? It's clear what his government are up to... and it's not just about Scotland, it's also about New Zealand, Norway, Switzerland and other countries that have move towards self-declaration since 2011.
I don’t know why you think Starmer is an expert on Scots law
No I don't think Starmer is an expert on scots law. It is more a case that I don't think you are, despite apparently some basic training.
So when you claim that Starmer has a "lack of understanding of scots law" I am not entirely convinced.
Pretty clear to me. I cant see the quote now. I did put it in the starmer thread but it broke the forum!
Whatever your views on the GRA this is a complete attack on scottish democracy. The GRA was passed by holyrood with support from all sides of the house by a large majority after 6 years of debate and amendment. Its a topic within the competence of holyrood. Veto from london is profoundly undemocratic.
thats the key here
It doesn't really matter who has 'legitimate' concerns, it's as close to a cross party consensus as has been seen in any area of UK politics in years.
Even the Scottish tories supported GRR under Ruth Davidson.
It's not really a question of whether TJ or SKS has a better understanding of Scots law. It's a question of whether the entirety of the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament have a better understanding of Scots law than SKS.
Do you think SKS knows Scots law better than the Scottish Government and the Scottish Parliament, ernie?
"I have concerns about the provision in Scotland, in particular the age reduction to 16 and, in particular, the rejection of our amendment in relation to the Equalities Act."Pressed on whether you are old enough at 16 to decide to change gender, he replied: "No, I don't think you are."
Thats pretty clear. Unfortunately thats wrong in law. Both on Gillick competence ( which applies in england) but wouldn't necessarily cover all at 16 and in Scots law ( and I think English) where its clear you can take decisions over your own medical treatment and do not need to consult parents or guardians once you are over 16.
Bit my cynicism (which is realism really based on experience) is this is a tactical move to
(a) distract from the awful mess they have got the NHS in
(b) millions can’t have both heating and eating
(c) the clusterfluck in Northern Ireland
(d) the economy is STILL fhoookted
(e) education is in a mess, with droves of teachers leaving (I’m married to such an example)
(f) multiple major strikes inc all those key workers who have been shafted for 12 years in nursing, ambulance, fire, teaching, and soon to be junior doctors too, all where the Gov fundamentally give a toss about them as ministers don’t have to use those services
(g) ALL of the above and more.
All Sunak has left is puffing the same shitty little culture war the Republicans are currently pursuing. He's prepared to strengthen the pro-independence argument even further in Scotland to do it.
some woolly words from a political appointee
So from now on will you be dismissing all comments from the Equality and Human Rights Commission as of no concern? Or only the comments which you don't agree with?
Btw your suggestion that the Equality and Human Rights Commission is politically motivated has the ring of a Daily Mail column writer about it.
So from now on will you be dismissing all comments from the Equality and Human Rights Commission as of no concern, or only the comments which you don’t agree with?
So can you please list exactly what the EHRC is concerned about, ernie?
I read the link you posted and it's not clear.
“I have concerns about the provision in Scotland, in particular the age reduction to 16 and, in particular, the rejection of our amendment in relation to the Equalities Act.” Pressed on whether you are old enough at 16 to decide to change gender, he replied: “No, I don’t think you are.”
Thats pretty clear.
Thanks TJ, that looks pretty clear to me.
But you can consider 16/17 too young to decide, without saying that the law shouldn't allow it via blanket exclusion. But I'm splitting hairs there. He is voicing concern about the age reduction.
its clear you can take decisions over your own medical treatment and do not need to consult parents or guardians once you are over 16
That doesn't change with this act. 16 and 17 year olds still need parental consent I think, an odd compromise. That's the thing, this is actually a very timid move... the opposition to it is all a bit odd. And depressing. That even such a small change to help Trans people be recognised comes up against such a backlash does not bode well. And it does seem worse South of the border, and not just in politics.
More of the LBGTQ+ lobby. the criticisms are based on her comments - linked to and come from the previous head and staff within the organisation. she caused a lot of strife by her position within the organisation on appointment an with later pronouncements
the mail would be more than happy with her I think as she is anti trans rights as a political position
Ernie - remember the labour party in Scotland support the GRA. they started off opposing it IIRC but as the bill was amended and refined over 6 years they came to support it. Scots labour MPs are aghast at Starmers position. Scots labour support for the bill means a lot given their previous record of automatically opposing anything the SNP or Greens propose
16 and 17 year olds still need parental consent I think,
not in Scotland. this is the bit that Starmer has either misunderstood or ignored. Its a long standing position
Once a child reaches 16, he or she has full adult legal rights to decide whether to consent to treatment or not.Child Health in Scotland operates within the framework of Scots law, which differs from the law in England and Wales
Scots Law treats the 16 year old as a full adult. He or she has the right to consent or refuse to consent to all medical, dental or surgical treatments or procedures.
Thats pretty clear. Unfortunately thats wrong in law.
No it is not clear that Starmer is giving a legal opinion. He was asked if he thought 16 was old enough to decide these things, he answered no - that is obviously his opinion. It is not a comment on Scot law.
Scots law says they are. That trumps an english politicians opinion.
So where is your evidence that Starmer will back a veto?
I said that I am not sure Starmer actually supports the Westminster veto of the Scottish proposed legislation.
You said "I fully expect Starmer to back Sunak". You claim that he will because according to you he hates the SNP so much. Is that all you've got or have you some actual evidence that he will back a veto? He has suggested that he won't.
Is that all you’ve got or have you some actual evidence that he will back a veto. He has suggested that he won’t.
You should definitely let Scottish Labour know that.
Leaving everything else aside the legal argument doesn't look strong. Is he hoping for a court case and lots of "enemies of the people" headlines? And claiming that they could accept a modified bill when their own party was involved in the construction of the last one and they kept their mouths shut then is pathetic.
And sadly another fine opportunity for Starmer to look weak, not to mention clueless about the issue and at odds with his own party who supported the bill- he keeps talking about the Equality Act, apparently not knowing that his own party succesfully introduced an amendment which says nothing in the new law modifies the equality act.
not in Scotland
Apologies, you are correct. I'm getting things mixed up with Ireland's changes.
at odds with his own party who supported the bill
The UK parliamentary party are quite split on this though. As are members.
We've seen what's happened to the Green party on this issue. The Tories have something to split the left on, and they're damn sure going to use it. Any position Starmer takes could mean trouble for his party.
Its my judgement Ernie. Murray who is scotlands only labour MP and shadow scots secretary supports the veto and Starmer normally has the same view on Scots politics. Its usually pretty reliable to assume that Starmer will agree with Murry even if Murrays views are at odds with Sarwar. its almost as if he does not consider MSPs and Holyrood worth considering
also 12 years of experience where labour particularly london labour will by default take a position that anything the SNP proposes must be opposed
it's my judgement Ernie
Fairy nuff. Only based on what he has said I am assuming that Starmer would not back a veto.
Starmer tends to try to take a neutral position on contentious issues - generally criticising the government's handling of the issue but not taking a very clear and unambiguous position concerning where he stands.
Starmer tends to try to take a neutral position on contentious issues – generally criticising the government’s handling of the issue but not taking a very clear and unambiguous position concerning where he stands.
That nay be a strategy which so far is working while ether Tories implode but has another two years to play out so all depends if it works for the next two years. Just let the tories continue imploding and ensuring the focus stays away from Labour as much as possible until the 6 months before election.
Anyway, as I can't see he's had his own thread,it appears former Chancellor Nadhim Zahawi owes HMRC £3.5m following an enquiry by the NCA and SFO. Can't link, it's on Accountancy Daily which I access via work.
Sets an interesting precedent for former Chancellors.
Normally a high value/profile case like that gets trumpeted all over HMRC internal comms....
You'd think that a former chancellor and the current chairman of the Tory party (and still a cabinet minister), being done for millions of pounds of tax dodging would be front page news, wouldn't you? Yet, the BBC haven't seen fit to even mention it
https://twitter.com/MikeHolden42/status/1614942345635438592?s=20&t=2NQJctDp2OksLaUaK3czLg
Its just yet another example of how debased our politics has become under this lot that all this warrants is a shrug. Rishi's 'governing with integrity' is going well, isn't it?
Zahawi you say... lying about money... never...
https://twitter.com/spittingcat/status/1615247511580512257?s=20&t=reM6cfZr5w5dkp06ey59Xw
Why is just about your objections? Why can’t Starmer, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and the Guardian also have their objections?
Everyone already had the ability to reply to the consultation, seemed that UK Govt 'organisations' didn't.
Some of their objections have been covered in the amendments and some like the safe spaces arguement are an impossible circle to square. The 3 month waiting period removes much of the risk of malicious action to disrupt single sex services.
Its not the substance of the act that is really in question anyway. Its the undemocratic action of Sunak and Jack. The GRA took 6 years to enact, has cross party support and passed Holyrood with a massive majority. For it to be cancelled on a whim by a Westminster government with no mandate in Scotland is a democratic outrage. They had a less nuclear option of refferal to the supreme court but chose not to take it presumably realising their legal case was weak.
From some snippets i have read it looks like Scottish labour are going to reverse their position from support to opposition to the GRA.
Another point is that those same concerns exist under english law. Nothing in the GRA changes that.
I'm staggered the BBC doesn't appear to be covering the Zahawi tax story (I can't find it if they are). If so , the process of being comprehensively neutered by their political appointees has been completed.
Why is just about your objections? Why can’t Starmer, the Equality and Human Rights Commission, and the Guardian also have their objections?
Everyone already had the ability to reply to the consultation, seemed that UK Govt ‘organisations’ didn’t.
Yeah read in the correct context which I wrote it, it referred to TJ's claim that any objections expressed were only motivated by hatred of the SNP.
Apparently only his objections were legitimate objections. Starmer, the Guardian newspaper, etc, have no genuine concerns, only hatred of the SNP.
Apparently only his objections were legitimate objections. Starmer, the Guardian newspaper, etc, have no genuine concerns, only hatred of the SNP.
Like I said, this issue was a near as has been seen in recent years a true cross-party consensus. Even the tories supported it under Ruth Davidson.
That the EHRC is now saying it has concerns, despite saying in this briefing from April 2022 that it doesn't have these concerns, is a bit strange.
Because the operation of the Equality Act gender reassignment exceptions does not rely on possession, or not, of a Gender Recognition Certificate, any reform of the Gender Recognition Act will not erode the special status of services provided separately for men and women, or for men or women only, as defined by the Equality Act 2010, such as domestic abuse refuges, health services and clubs. We have issued clear, practical guidance for providers of separate and single-sex services to help them fully understand how to meet the needs of all women and men.
So, for the second time of asking you, ernie, what exactly are these genuine concerns?
TJ’s claim that any objections expressed were only motivated by hatred of the SNP.
thats not quite what I said. Experience shows that labour automatically oppose the SNP on any issue almost 100% and that Starmer does not want to see Scotland improve its standard of living by left wing socially liberal policies as it shows his centerist approach to be wrong with a litttle bit of "get in your place scots"
Re the concerns - all discussed at length before. ( access to safe spaces / womens only services) The real issue is that the GRA in Scotland has no bearing on these. Those concerns remain the same under english law and under the GRA and they have been addressed in the bill as much as can be. This stuff is one of those positions where someones rights are at risk. The GRA does not alter this at all. These concerns ( whether you believe them to be real or not) Exist under English law on trans rights in exactly the same way
If you read the link I provided on the chair of the EHRC she opposes trans rights and is in favour of gay / trans conversion therapy which is why her appointment caused a lot of concern
